Summary of political beliefs

[Redalgo]

Economic:

Government should enjoy primacy over the economy in a mixed, social democratic system. Cradle-to-grave welfare benefits and social rights should be generous and provided by the state... these benefits funded by and provided universally to the citizenry. This would include state aid for caring after children and dependent seniors, more paid parental and sick leave from work, substantial assistance for students interested in tertiary education, nationalization of the health insurance industry to achieve universal coverage, and a state-guaranteed, survivable minimum standard of living. People should essentially be entitled to basic human needs and equality of opportunity so that they may more fairly compete in the market for better qualities of life. I oppose class warfare and am not anti-business but believe everyone deserves some dignity, rights, and social justice.

Rather that focusing on robust expansion of GDP I am more concerned about controlling the rates of inflation and unemployment. The state should embrace conservationist policies that prioritize long-term sustainability of development over short-term market demands. I favor nuclear energy, renewables, aggressive reductions in carbon emissions, fair trade, the right of workers to safely unionize, allowing Third World trade partners to engage in limited forms of protectionism to shelter vulnerable parts of their developing economies, and oppose a return to the gold standard. In terms of taxation I would want the corporate income tax reduced by at least 10%, payroll taxes hiked, and progressive income taxes adjusted so that they reach a top bracket in excess of 50%.
  

Social:

My stance on social issues is mostly progressive. I support freedoms of assembly, association, free expression, lifestyle, and religion - the line I draw being that if ones actions are not harming or putting in substantive danger anyone else it really shouldn't be any of the government's business to oppose. I believe marijuana, prostitution, and physician assisted suicide should be legalized but regulated. In regards to separation of church and state all public institutions and national symbols should be secular. God ought to be removed from the national motto, official oaths, and Pledge of Allegiance. Funding for the arts should promote creativity, expression, and preserve the rich cultural and historic traditions of our nation. Support for scientific research should also be expanded on a number of fronts. NASA's budget in particular I want to see substantially boosted for progress towards manned Mars missions and other publicly-backed achievements in space.

I support affirmative action, a woman's right to choose (with some limits on 3rd trimester abortion), civil marriage laws that treat hetero and homosexuals equally, stem cell research, campaign finance reform, electoral reform, tort reform, harbor some animal rights concerns, and believe welfare policies should promote gender equality. I oppose torture, capital punishment, mandatory minimums, the Patriot Act, domestic espionage, warrant-less searches or seizures, unrestricted gun ownership, smoking in most public areas, most forms of censorship, abstinence only sex ed., and regulation of what goes on between consenting adults in the privacy of the home. There are a few "victimless" crimes I consider ridiculous. Many other minor stances have likely slipped my mind. Anyway, I am generally fond of diversity and have an accepting, multicultural attitude.


Foreign Policy

Fundamentally, in terms of foreign policy I think the promotion of national interests does not have to create zero-sum conflicts among countries. It is difficult but important to balance concerns for freedom with equality, human rights with self-determination, and idealism with pragmatism. I favor generous aid for lesser-developed countries and some policies that do not strictly serve our own interests. A world government should - along with other things - regulate economic globalization. Potential member states such as the United States should be a part of this union even if it means becoming only semi-autonomous within it. Militarily, I am somewhat pacifist. Wars ought to be waged only in defense, to intervene in cases of egregious human rights violations (e.g. genocide) when diplomacy has failed, and whenever possible should be multilateral in nature. I would also like more arms reduction treaties with Russia, the eventual whittling down of WMD stockpiles around the world until they can finally be abolished outright, and deep cuts to defense spending.

In the Israeli-Palestinian conflict a two-state solution in which the Palestinian capital becomes East Jerusalem is appealing. I lean moderately Palestinian on what ought to be done and feel that the U.S. has been supporting Israel too unconditionally, but can still sympathize with their grievances and concerns on the other side of the dispute. Iran and North Korea present even thornier problems. For now it is difficult to say what else could be done that is not already. Putting that aside, I would prefer the War on Drugs end and the embargo on Cuba be lifted. Immigration reform and a pathway to citizenship for those already here is much desired. To some extent my perspective is cosmopolitan... yet at the same time morally relativist. I want states to cooperate, become interdependent, defuse conflicts, celebrate their diversity, promote international solidarity, and pool their assets for the sake of human development and advancing other common goals.

Edited for grammatical slips that flipped a few of my opinions inside out.

[Redalgo]

Basic Foundations:

The state is a tool for promoting the long-term happiness of its subjects, a role requiring management of interpersonal and intergroup forms of conflict (namely over strategically advantageous, privilege-conveying capital) in accordance to the moral values of society. Those values are rooted in human evolution, manifest as intuitive feelings about what is right or wrong, and are subject to some variation from person to person due to our diverse environments, experiences, perceptions of reality, and - as a contributing factor - genes.

I prefer to conceptualize the state as a person who citizens consul to adopt their own sets of virtues and vices, with the cumulative result of their influences exerted representing a fair equilibrium of values worthy of being described as the country’s moral character. If regimes stray too far from the ideal character of the nation, the masses will feel oppressed no matter how supportive of “freedom,” “equality,” or “justice” their leaders claim to be. In contrast, most folks will not feel oppressed by rules if their contents are deemed moral.

If everybody tries to project their moral values onto the state using institutions considered legitimate the results should be respected - even if the outcomes involve policies based on perceptions of righteousness that diverge from ones own. I do my part by embracing and promoting the one political attitude and five ideologies I believe would best regulate our conflicts of interest so as to ethically resolve emerging problems and bring about a better future for all members of society. Although I am not truly a paragon of the virtues I most value, habitualizing them to serve as guides for my behavior is an important goal of mine.


Attitudinal Conflict:

This is a conflict of interest concerning how countries should evolve.

As a vanguard, I believe those citizens who best understand matters of who should get what in society and why should provide an elite tier of leadership for folks who do not - advancing a righteous ideological agenda by teaching it to other people and replacing the current, prevailing moral system with a new, visionary, superior replacement as swiftly and pragmatically as possible without in the process resorting to corrupt, unnecessarily violent, or otherwise vicious conduct. This approach is courageous yet also intemperate.

Otherwise, I could be fairly labeled a hard progressive or soft radical.


Structural Conflict:

This is a conflict of interest about how to mediate political disputes.

My take on solidarism is to establish political institutions which promote constitutional republicanism, secular government, and interdependency betwixt people while lowering the threat of anomie via overt state support for social cohesion. The game that is politics should be open for all to safely partake in, and individuals should enjoy a broad array of social rights, but we must also be careful not to allow pervasive individualism to threaten the bonds that hold us together. A moderate balance of vigilance and discipline is proper.

Using more familiar terms, I am a republican, liberal, and corporatist.


Productive Conflict:

This is a conflict of interest regarding resource trade and distribution.

To me, socialism is having a market economy that rewards merit in proportion to ones contributions to society, allows for enough state intervention to account for externalities, features workplace democracy in the form of worker-owned cooperatives, and distributes resources in such a way as to enshrine human dignity, decrease inequality of opportunity, and resolve material disputes with moral integrity. Selfishness and competitiveness have important roles to play in business but so, too, should fairness, cooperation, and kindness. Some ambition will end up sacrificed in the pursuit of compassion.

Consider me either a hard social democrat or soft democratic socialist.


Generational Conflict:

This is a conflict of interest about sustainable economic development.

Within my interpretation of personism, humans are not an exceptional species meriting special treatment. All creatures and machines deserve rights according to their degrees of personhood. Resources should be managed with our own interests in mind but long-term goals take precedent, because the needs of other critters and future generations of human beings trump in importance our often needlessly impulsive, exploitative, and extravagant short-term desires. Nature is sacred and responsibility more important than magnificence.

I.e., I extend humanist reasoning to all critters and am a “bright green.”


Conventional Conflict:

This conflict of interest concerns social values, norms, and diversity.

I am a multiculturalist insofar as I think people should be able to develop identities and engage in customs that do not wrong others without their consent. Instead of encouraging assimilation or partaking in cultural imperialism the state should accommodate, celebrate, and show respect for diverse groups, beliefs, and lifestyles. Rather than taking this line of thought to an individualist extreme, I reckon we should emphasize civic nationalism and stress that out of a diverse many we are one. This is more about modesty than reverence.

Alternatively, I could be described as a hardline “cultural pluralist.”


Extraterritorial Conflict:

This conflict of interest is centered wholly on international relations.

Cosmopolitanism holds that all people are part of a single, extended moral community even though many of our customs, beliefs, and national interests differ. The wellbeing of people in ones own nation is not more important than that of people in others, and with this recognition comes a duty to honor human rights and fight in their defense whenever and wherever they are imperiled. States should empathetically weigh and act to advance the interests of all, and aim to gradually, peacefully coalesce into a globalized country. It's about setting aside some national assertiveness to be nice neighbors.

It would also be fair to call me a world federalist and constructivist.

[Redalgo]

?

Fascism, though a change of avatar unless to independent would be silly in my opinion since there are no sensible fascist parties to support in the States if one were so inclined to do so. I'm alright with Mint though; we just don't see eye to eye on a lot of issues.

[Redalgo]

Alright, so it’s been about eight months. I feel that I can convey my views a wee bit better now.

People compete for influence over varied forms of capital in varied aspects of their lives, use that capital to get what they want, and in doing so must often act to resolve their conflicts of interests. The state lays out rules for how we all are to play the game, so to speak, and it is in the best long-term interests of the individual and community alike if those rules feel fair and of mutual benefit. Subjective moral values form the foundations of public policy, and I reckon the laws of any given population ought to be a balanced mean of its individuals’ diverse perceptions of right and wrong.

I am inclined to believe human nature is mostly “good” but want a government designed to guard against corruption. Vigilance and redundancy of safeguards (e.g. a federalist system, checks and balances, separation of powers, representative democracy, and so forth) seem more desirable to me than discipline and effectual leadership. I am wary of authority figures and likely to balk at usages of capital that seem “oppressive,” unjust, or set a precedent for abusive practices at a later date. I fondly advocate transparency, accountability, ease of access to information for the general public, and a political culture where we can express opinions without fear of retribution.

On economic matters I am driven by a deep sense of compassion and empathy. Though probably best described as a market socialist, I know little of economics and am pragmatic enough to adopt ideas from the Chicago school of capitalist thought, couching them within a framework of loftier, overarching ideals. These include lowering relative socioeconomic inequality, increasing access to opportunities, and promoting workplace democracy - which in turn compels me to desire a social democratic welfare regime and the replacement of most American firms with worker cooperatives. I oppose class struggle and neo-corporatism, but also have a bit of fondness for the Nordic Model.

One of my deepest concerns is that people focus too much on “me” and “now” as opposed to “us” and “later.” Desertification, soil erosion, loss of biodiversity, timber depletion, dwindling reserves of freshwater, overpopulation, and ravenous exploitation of minerals and animal life weigh heavily on my mind, nudging me toward a perspective that humanity in general is being very reckless and irresponsible with the resources currently at its disposal, setting itself up for a possibly devastating deterioration of living conditions for future generations. I want thorough environmental regulation, protection for vast expanses of wild lands, and to extend more rights to other animal species.  

My vision of an excellent society also calls for social norms compatible with the individual pursuit of self-development and contentment in life. To me, this seems to imply a need for some intervention by government to provide a supportive, nurturing environment for folks... and also a great deal of respect for others’ projects - a live and let live social order where individuals and groups know it is none of their business to thwart or otherwise obstruct the affairs of others so long as what they are doing inflicts no significant harm onto or aggressively initiates violence against them. I sense this encapsulates the virtue of modesty. It’d be arrogant to force ones own way of life onto others.

And yet, to some extent by even having rules for the game we do just that. One way or another, we have to give up some rights, privileges, freedoms, liberties or whatever else you prefer to call them in order to secure a more attractive collection of others. Even if we abolish government, we can never be entirely free. Deciding which perceptions of morality are worthwhile to codify into law, and how, is what sets a person apart from others on the issues. A lot of energy then goes into rationalizing the perceptions. We easily fall for an illusion of likeminded folk seeming to be wiser and more rational than our rivals, but I try to remain convinced that most of my opponents are just as well-intended, committed to the public interest, and worthy of being treated with respect as am I.

[Redalgo]

Liberalism is combined with a non-Marxisant form of market socialism intended to disperse power out over the population and enable each person to use at least the minimum in basic resources needed by them to grow, partake in public life, and meaningfully exercise their rights in pursuits of happiness regardless of their socioeconomic backgrounds.

Influences on my worldview come in bits and pieces from figures including Aristotle, Rousseau, Locke, Rawls, Montesquieu, Bernstein, Eucken, Bourdieu, Glaserfeld, Vasak, Haidt, and (far less today than in the past) Trotsky.


Budget: Raise income taxes on all brackets, eliminate the corporate tax, scale down national defense, then revisit healthcare reform. Reforms for Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are on the table.

Civil Liberties: The Constitution should recognize a set of individual rights that mostly overlaps with those protected today. Property rights are less emphasized yet not entirely neglected, either.

Civil Rights: Bigotry and unjust discrimination should be opposed with education, regulation, and anti-poverty measures. Affirmative action is alright in moderation but ineffective as a standalone policy.

The Economy: Markets are regulated, property rights reformed (e.g. collectivization), and a basic income guaranteed to every citizen set to local poverty lines. Salary controls affect inequality of compensation ratios within each co-op. Sole proprietorships continue but corporations and partnerships are banned due to their authoritarian designs. State intervention is mostly avoided in favour of setting up a regulatory framework in which competition may run its course. Some deregulation may be prudent.

Education: Teach civics and critical, free thinking; finance basic research, cultural institutions, and exploration in space. Within an overarching framework of objectives there should be flexibility for the curricula of different states to vary.

Elections: I support public-financing, proportional representation, and multi-party politics. There should be a formalized role for academia to educate voters and public officials on subjects of political relevance.

Environment: Market failures on issues like animal rights, pollution, and sustainability necessitate some state involvement. I propose nuclear fission as a stopgap replacement of coal, favour electric cars, and oppose increases to fossil fuel production by affluent countries.

Gun Rights: Licensed, registered ownership is alright for small arms and most light weapons; some control is reasonable.

Healthcare: The established system in the U.S. is dysfunctional; almost any Western alternative would be more practical.

Immigration: Work visas, amnesty, higher migrant quotas, increased foreign aid, mercy for seekers of asylum, etc.

International Issues: Countries ought to negotiate for mutual gains, respond to humanitarian crises, and form a global federation. Regional unions are appropriate on the way. Elimination of WMDs, cluster bombs, and mines is sought.

Religion: The state should be neutral on supernatural issues, respecting all religions but focusing on individual rights.